10 Tropes About Women That Women Should Stop Laughing About

Stereotypes are powerful because they're easy, which is why we see them standing in again and again for "real" human qualities and characters. But they are also insidious, demonstrating so many ways to go wrong, and so few to go right.

There's a work of maybe-satire that's been floating around the Internet for the last couple of weeks. You may have seen it. You may have laughed at it or shared it on your Facebook page or read blog posts about it, like Lindy West's amusing take on Jezebel yesterday. It's a piece in the University of Georgia student newspaper Red and Black titled "How to find that perfect husband in college," by Amber Estes, purportedly the girl in the image below, purportedly a sophomore majoring in public relations.

In her piece, Estes reminds women that the clock is ticking—there are but four years to find that "right brilliant babe to father their children and replenish their bank accounts." Estes goes on to instruct the Southern belle looking for "a man to eat her cooking and appreciate her cleaning" to hang around the law school for the most ambitious guys, to "Instagram everything," to "STAY CLASSY," and to get a ring, "not a fling."

If this isn't satire it's unbelievable, but even if it is satire (and the paper's EIC, for the record, thought that it clearly was) there's a lot of wrong here. It's too easy to sit back and laugh at something like this while remaining blind to its more insidious elements. Because what Estes is describing, tongue in cheek or not, is a stereotype of a woman that a lot of people actually do believe exists. (If you've been to college at any point in the last 50 years, you probably remember someone referring to that girl who was just there for her "MRS" degree, no?) What's ultimately gross about those jokes and this piece is that they're just another vehicle for woman-bashing, albeit one cloaked in extreme ridiculousness or even in a kind of presumed feminism, aka, women shouldn't go to college to try to find husbands. But to mock women for, say, actively wanting to get married (while on the other side of the coin, mocking them for not doing that) presents a situation in which women are stereotyped and criticized for whatever they choose—and whatever they choose has to do with men in these and most examples. In fact, a look at some of the most common stereotypes about women indicate a frightening reality: In the collective mind, sometimes there is no way for women to behave. That is not very funny.

In the vein of our 9 articles "for women" that journalists should stop writing, here are 10 stereotypes about women that we should be very careful about passing off as meaningless jokes. Because whether you're a woman or a man, the "right" way to behave is to make good decisions for yourself that aren't based in someone else's perceived stereotype about you, or in the countering fear of being branded as such a type. There are so many stereotypes, ranging from the overly emotional "hysterical" woman (who may or may not have PMS) to the coldly vicious, calculating "anti-woman" to the tomboy to the superficial, shallow girly-girl. None are flattering; none are hilarious; most are couched in relationships, or lack thereof, with men. The following are just a few.

The "Crazy." Girlfriend, wife, total stranger, holder of an unrequited crush, or just "somebody that you used to know," this person has acted in a way that is most easily brushed off as nuts, though no actual diagnosis has been made. This is, as others have written before me, an undermining way to make others feel better about behavior that perhaps they are complicit in. Craziness might be: Liking someone more than they like you. Yelling at someone for not behaving in the way you want them to. Contacting someone too much. Contacting someone erratically. Misunderstanding someone's reactions to you. Demanding to know what went wrong, if something went wrong. Being too direct. Not being direct enough. Jumping into bed too soon, or not soon enough, or erratically. Changing your mind. Not changing your mind. In short: Craziness is anything and everything the other party (who in so dubbing someone as such becomes the default non-crazy one) wants it to be, except, most likely, any form of actual mental illness (which shouldn't, for the record, be called "craziness" either). It's just a way to put people down, so pick another word.

The Nagging Shrew, or the Happy Housewife. You have to be one or the other, right? Either you're a woman who's somehow managed to grab a guy and make him yours (maybe you faked a pregnancy? Charmed him with magical potions? Have him tied up in your walk-in closet?) only to abuse, castigate, and demand any number of things immediately and with great shrillness, or you're a bland idiot without goals or ambitions who's perfectly overjoyed to find occupation picking up your man's socks and putting the toilet seat back down again, hooray! Both of these "jokes" make everyone involved look bad.

The Asexual, "Masculinized" Career Woman. Perhaps the most prominent example of this "type" is Hillary Clinton, whom people love to criticize for everything ranging from her looks to her choice of husband to her work ethic to her ability to occasionally have fun, too. Wait, none of that actually sounds asexual or "masculinized"? That's because it isn't. Instead, Clinton is a powerful female figure in her own right. That's scary for a lot of people, and that's why they insist on re-contextualizing Clinton in terms of how she relates to men: Either she is one, or she's not attractive to them, because how else would she be so successful? (See also: The majority of women in power whether in politics or in the corporate world. If they've surpassed the so-called glass ceiling, it's likely they've been put in this box at some point or another—or, like Marissa Mayer, new Yahoo! CEO, are already being warned about a "glass cliff.")

The New Old Maid. This is the woman of whom men and other women, particularly of a certain age, ask concernedly, in hushed whispers, though sometimes in front of that woman's own face, "Is something wrong with her?" Why wouldn't she want to get married and settle down? If she's actively chosen not to, or hasn't gotten around to it by the time she's in her mid-twenties or, egad, her thirties, surely there's something deeply flawed inside of her, even if it's not apparent. Or perhaps she doesn't like men!?, these charming people wonder. This so-stereotyped woman is often put in the position of thinking she has to "womansplain" or make excuses for her choices—even though they are personal choices and, really, should require no such rationalization. In fact, rationalizing only tends to prove to those asking that the lady doth protest too much, thereby again feeding the stereotype of her being too picky, too difficult, too whatever to do what is expected of her. (Note that a guy in this situation rarely meets with the same disapproval as does a woman.)

The Gold-Digger. Ah, this one just wants a man for his money, and so she is superficial and vile and reprehensible, with totally the wrong values. In a quite similar stereotype as trophy wife, however, she's exploited rather than the one doing the exploiting, and therefore it's a bit more OK or at least, less threatening. (If the man is the one opportunistically taking the advantage here, is the subtext, it's more "normal.") But you simply can't be a woman who overtly dates a man for money, even though, come on, everyone dates everyone else for something. Compare this to the cougar, in which the woman can't be the more powerful, either...

The Baby/Wedding-Freak.This is the caricature as defined in part by Estes, among others; the woman who is baby-and-marriage CRAZY (see above), she'll do anything for it! Strategize, plot, read terrible blog posts or entire self-help books about how to get what she wants. She's probably Pinteresting her own wedding plans even though she's not even dating anyone, or she buys baby clothes because they're so cute just to save them for later, once she actually has a child, assuming she does, and of course she will, she tells every guy on her first date about the giant family she wants! Of course, hardly anyone is actually like this, really like this, and if they are, they should go take a walk and get away from Pinterest for a few minutes. The scariest thing about this stereotype is that it's just another woman-hating opportunity, though, in different clothes. We can hate on women who want to get married as much as we hate on those who don't! And then of course there's the bridezilla, toward whom we can all swarm, hate-moths to the hate-flame.

The Bimbo, or Trophy-Wife. See above. If you're pretty and younger than your husband who chose you for your looks, you can be bestowed with the great compliment of being objectified as a trophy wife. If you're maybe not very smart, in whoever's opinion, or perhaps you simply don't look smart (further objectification) and also either don't want to be married or haven't found the right guy yet, you might get to be called a bimbo.

The Cougar. The cougar of course is the opposite of the trophy-wife; she's the one with the trophy-husband-or-boyfriend, who she might be older and more "powerful" than. But she gets yelled at just the same by people who judge her as, essentially, one of the big cats sinking her teeth and claws into the weaker specimen she chooses. Interestingly, the cougar might also be considered a Baby/Wedding Freak, or a New Old Maid, depending on how she feels about the institution of marriage. And, no, you can't be a cougar if you're 16, but really, no woman is a cougar. She's just a human, dating or in a relationship with another human.

The "Feminazi." This is someone who has been determined, usually by men, to hate men. Usually this person doesn't hate men (until maybe she is called names by them), but instead the name-callers are judging because they feel threatened (a common theme with stereotypes). We can of course thank Rush Limbaugh for popularizing this awful, awful term, which he used to describe Gloria Steinem, Susan Sarandon, and others before kindly moving on to further criticisms, like "slut." Even the terms "feminist" and "activist," if used in a certain way, can take on the implications of this word, which is essentially just an insult from folks who are afraid that independent women are going to somehow undermine society. Fear is a nasty thing, isn't it?

The Virgin, or the Whore. Damned if you don't, damned if you do might be the overall message to take away with this one, and with the idea of female stereotypes in general. If you're a virgin of a certain age in this modern world you are a weirdo, a prude, frigid, or possibly even "crazy." But if you are sexually active and not married to a person to whom you are otherwise committed, you've also won the ire of many. And if you sleep or have slept with more than one or even many, for fun, because you wanted to, or just because, you're damned, girl. If you would or have considered abortion, don't even show your face ... but also don't show your face if you use birth control. You might get called a slut.

These are just a few of the many ways women can go wrong in the eyes of others. It's amazing, with such a narrow path upon which to stride and reap the benefits of not being condemned for some sort of illicit womanhood, that we exist at all!

Obviously, stereotypes are bad. To assume that a woman is only out to snag a husband is as undermining and damaging as assuming a woman is one of those "crazy feminists" out to destroy the institution of marriage. Such types are actually quite rare; as people, we're far more complicated than any trope. But cliches are powerful because they're easy, and that's why we see them standing in again and again for "real" human qualities and characters. The important thing is that we learn to recognize and call out such stereotypes when they're being used, because they're not just "funny" or stupid; they're a way in which women can continue to be belittled, undermined, or told they're doing it wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, but shame through stereotype shouldn't become a form of punishment any more than we should believe in stereotypes as realities—or as a form of entertainment—themselves.

Most Popular

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer.

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer. Most of the U.S. territory currently has no electricity or running water, fewer than 250 of the island’s 1,600 cellphone towers are operational, and damaged ports, roads, and airports are slowing the arrival and transport of aid. Communication has been severely limited and some remote towns are only now being contacted. Jenniffer Gonzalez, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, told the Associated Press that Hurricane Maria has set the island back decades.

A small group of programmers wants to change how we code—before catastrophe strikes.

There were six hours during the night of April 10, 2014, when the entire population of Washington State had no 911 service. People who called for help got a busy signal. One Seattle woman dialed 911 at least 37 times while a stranger was trying to break into her house. When he finally crawled into her living room through a window, she picked up a kitchen knife. The man fled.

The 911 outage, at the time the largest ever reported, was traced to software running on a server in Englewood, Colorado. Operated by a systems provider named Intrado, the server kept a running counter of how many calls it had routed to 911 dispatchers around the country. Intrado programmers had set a threshold for how high the counter could go. They picked a number in the millions.

The greatest threats to free speech in America come from the state, not from activists on college campuses.

The American left is waging war on free speech. That’s the consensus from center-left to far right; even Nazis and white supremacists seek to wave the First Amendment like a bloody shirt. But the greatest contemporary threat to free speech comes not from antifa radicals or campus leftists, but from a president prepared to use the power and authority of government to chill or suppress controversial speech, and the political movement that put him in office, and now applauds and extends his efforts.

The most frequently cited examples of the left-wing war on free speech are the protests against right-wing speakers that occur on elite college campuses, some of which have turned violent.New York’s Jonathan Chait has described the protests as a “war on the liberal mind” and the “manifestation of a serious ideological challenge to liberalism—less serious than the threat from the right, but equally necessary to defeat.” Most right-wing critiques fail to make such ideological distinctions, and are far more apocalyptic—some have unironically proposed state laws that define how universities are and are not allowed to govern themselves in the name of defending free speech.

A growing body of research debunks the idea that school quality is the main determinant of economic mobility.

One of the most commonly taught stories American schoolchildren learn is that of Ragged Dick, Horatio Alger’s 19th-century tale of a poor, ambitious teenaged boy in New York City who works hard and eventually secures himself a respectable, middle-class life. This “rags to riches” tale embodies one of America’s most sacred narratives: that no matter who you are, what your parents do, or where you grow up, with enough education and hard work, you too can rise the economic ladder.

A body of research has since emerged to challenge this national story, casting the United States not as a meritocracy but as a country where castes are reinforced by factors like the race of one’s childhood neighbors and how unequally income is distributed throughout society. One such study was published in 2014, by a team of economists led by Stanford’s Raj Chetty. After analyzing federal income tax records for millions of Americans, and studying, for the first time, the direct relationship between a child’s earnings and that of their parents, they determined that the chances of a child growing up at the bottom of the national income distribution to ever one day reach the top actually varies greatly by geography. For example, they found that a poor child raised in San Jose, or Salt Lake City, has a much greater chance of reaching the top than a poor child raised in Baltimore, or Charlotte. They couldn’t say exactly why, but they concluded that five correlated factors—segregation, family structure, income inequality, local school quality, and social capital—were likely to make a difference. Their conclusion: America is land of opportunity for some. For others, much less so.

One hundred years ago, a retail giant that shipped millions of products by mail moved swiftly into the brick-and-mortar business, changing it forever. Is that happening again?

Amazon comes to conquer brick-and-mortar retail, not to bury it. In the last two years, the company has opened 11 physical bookstores. This summer, it bought Whole Foods and its 400 grocery locations. And last week, the company announced a partnership with Kohl’s to allow returns at the physical retailer’s stores.

Why is Amazon looking more and more like an old-fashioned retailer? The company’s do-it-all corporate strategy adheres to a familiar playbook—that of Sears, Roebuck & Company. Sears might seem like a zombie today, but it’s easy to forget how transformative the company was exactly 100 years ago, when it, too, was capitalizing on a mail-to-consumer business to establish a physical retail presence.

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

It is insufficient to statethe obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest for 2017, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17. The Grand Prize Winner will receive $10,000 (USD), publication in National Geographic Magazine and a feature on National Geographic’s Instagram account. The folks at National Geographic were, once more, kind enough to let me choose among the contest entries so far for display here. The captions below were written by the individual photographers, and lightly edited for style.

What the Trump administration has been threatening is not a “preemptive strike.”

Donald Trump lies so frequently and so brazenly that it’s easy to forget that there are political untruths he did not invent. Sometimes, he builds on falsehoods that predated his election, and that enjoy currency among the very institutions that generally restrain his power.

That’s the case in the debate over North Korea. On Monday, The New York Timesdeclared that “the United States has repeatedly suggested in recent months” that it “could threaten pre-emptive military action” against North Korea. On Sunday, The Washington Post—after asking Americans whether they would “support or oppose the U.S. bombing North Korean military targets” in order “to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons”—announced that “Two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike.” Citing the Post’s findings, The New York Times the same day reported that Americans are “deeply opposed to the kind of pre-emptive military strike” that Trump “has seemed eager to threaten.”

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy sparred with Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on CNN hours after their bill dismantling Obamacare appeared to collapse.

Ordinarily, you debate to stave off defeat. But for Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy on Monday night, the defeat came first.

By the time the two GOP senators stepped on CNN’s stage Monday night for a prime-time debate over their health-care proposal, they knew they had already lost.

A few hours earlier, Senator Susan Collins became the third Republican to formally reject the pair’s legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, effectively killing its chances for passage through the Senate this week. Graham and Cassidy had hoped to use the forum to make a closing argument for their plan, and to line it up against Senator Bernie Sanders and his call for a single-payer, “Medicare-for-All” health-care system. Instead, the two senators found themselves defending a proposal that was no less hypothetical—and probably much less popular—than Sanders’s supposed liberal fantasy.